Capitalist Corner

September 30, 2007

That's Rich

We've seen this moviebefore. It's not like there aren't legitimate and serious criticisms to be made of Hillary Clinton, but I think Frank Rich actually does Clinton's people a service by wrapping his (barely identifiable) substantive criticism of the Senator in his tired, political-analysis-as-theater-criticism shtick.

Look, successful politicians are inauthentic. You don't come close to being President without developing a carefully cultivated public persona. To pretend otherwise is nonsense, and you tend to see people harp on the A-word most often when all they're really trying to do is say that, on a personal level, they just don't like someone. In 2000, Rich's problem was that serial liar and egghead Al Gore, constantly boring us all with his talk of actual policies. Yawn! Today, we get a couple paragraphs on Hillary Clinton's laugh, with which we're apparently supposed to be concerned. ("Then there was that laugh," Rich writes, at which point you immediately feel a headache coming on. And just for the record, a purportedly serious New York Times columnist making unironic use of a Daily Show segment that mocks a presidential candidate's laugh is exactly the sort of thing that the Daily Show would make fun of.)

There's more of this silliness, of course. Rich mocks "the track record of Washington's conventional wisdom," as if his performance during the 2000 election never happened. There's his claim that Clinton was "tardy" with her health care plan, as though announcing a plan 14 months before a general election and five months before primaries is somehow meaningless. (And what does Rich think about that plan? Hard to say.) He says that the Clinton campaign "works relentlessly to shut down legitimate journalistic vetting of her record," citing their work in killing a story that was to be "an account of infighting in Hillaryland" and thus not clearly at allabout Clinton's "record," as well as a story about the delay in releasing a large number of Clinton's papers during her time as First Lady, even though the story in question never once suggests that Clinton has had anything to do with this holdup.

It's easy to forget this since Rich so frequently -- and, on occasion, devastatingly -- writes about Iraq, but the man is not a particularly good columnist. His grasp of substantive domestic policy is tenuous at best, and his interest in the stagecraft of politics, while entertaining enough when it was in the Arts pages, has devolved into a stultifying self-parody of precisely the sort that a more adept and self-aware version of Rich would savage. With Bush becoming increasingly irrelevant, we're going to get more of this from Rich, and it's a safe bet that unless the Democrats nominate someone of whom he approves, you're going to be hearing quite a bit about the supposed inauthenticity of the liberal in the race.

And if this were to mean that a liberal New York Times columnist might actually help elect a Republican -- again? Well, a guy's gotta write columns, doesn't he?

Update: Just as a response to some of the comments, it's not that we shouldn't be concerned with stagecraft at all when choosing a nominee. The problem is that a lot of that sort of analysis is plainly silly, and when we buy into it -- or don't call people in the supposed liberal media out on it -- we end up shooting ourselves in the foot. I get the distinct feeling that the kind of people who would call "that laugh" of Hillary Clinton's "the Cackle" are pretty much the same kind of people who complained about Al Gore sighing too much. And it's not that Gore is blameless for 2000 -- his temperament probably contributed to the mostly restrained nature of his campaign -- but it's also clear that he didn't get a fair shake.

Comments

So FDR and JFK were big fakers in terms of using their public persona to hide behind as a way of avoiding substantive arguments? Who knew that all politicians are fake. Cynical thy name is Ankush.

Posted by: akaison | Sep 30, 2007 3:15:02 AM

So FDR and JFK were big fakers in terms of using their public persona to hide behind as a way of avoiding substantive arguments?

Indeed they were -- the very best.

Posted by: idlemind | Sep 30, 2007 4:20:28 AM

"his interest in the stagecraft of politics"

Yes. By all means let us ignore the stagecraft of politics. What a silly interest to have. Dennis Kucinich for Democratic nominee! Obviously, whether a politician is skilled in stagecraft or not has absolutely no bearing on their ability to get elected and/or remain popular while pursuing a partisan agenda.

-----

Frank Rich's piece this week is pretty much precisely on target.

Like Gore in 2000, Team Hillary has made a (perhaps wise) strategic decision that "Real Hillary" is an electoral loser, and that the answer to this is to run a campaign relentlessly and efficiently devoid of any candor or passion. Ankush is an idiot if he thinks this is something we shouldn't be concerned about in choosing our nominee.

And the best thing I've read about The Cackle came from a John Dickerson piece this week:

Clinton also needs to ditch the laugh because it has become her tell ... Clinton's laugh backfires. It signals to voters that they should pay attention, because a dodge is coming.

I'd point out that three columnists in two days have essentially written the exact same column... and for my money, Gail Collins get the tone right, though Maureen Dowd probably makes the point most effectively. They, combined with Friedman's newest on the 9/11 mindset, reflect an unusually revealing moment of Times groupthink. All of them are quite clear about what they don't like; none of them, really, is explaining what they are for, or what policies or substantive changes in governance would get us to whatever it is they think is preferable. Neither Dowd, nor Collins, nor Rich offer any substantial analysis of a policy position of Mrs. Clinton's, all instead review her persona... and her husband.

Look, I don't want Mrs. Clinton to be the nominee, but none of this is doing anything but assisting her in making an argument that her critics offer little but personal barbs. There are substantive problems with Clinton's proposals and stances on issues, and they can be raised and discussed calmly and coherently - indeed, up until this week, things were arguably heading in a direction where bloggers and some thoughtful print writers were raising actual questions about actual stances on actual issues. Now, thanks to this 3 columnist in 2 day trifecta, we'll have at least 2 weeks of evaluating her laugh, her gestures, her husband, her daughter... and of course, her inevitability. I keep saying, if you don't want her to be the inevitable nominee, then don't act as if she is. If there are - as Neil reminds us, week after week - substantive reasons why John Edwards is right about the issues, why not discuss that? Why not make a serious examination of healthcare central to how we decide on a nominee?

No, by all means, let's talk about how Clinton laughs at things in an odd way (or, as no one seems to have discussed, the way when she walks into a speaking engagement, she smiles and waves and then points at someone in the crowd, mouths something, and laughs. Seriously. I've seen her do it now in every recent piece of B-roll they air in stories about her. It's very odd). Let's make this about how she's giving a performance because, as Ankush notes rather accurately, that's what politicians do. I grow weary, yet again, of dancing to the all powerful NYT columnist tune (a tune, which I'd also point out can be applied equally well to Edwards and Obama, and has been, a lot) where theatrics trump substance. But hey let's do that dance again... it's bound to turn out differently than it did with Kerry... Gore... Clinton... Dukakis... wow, that list is starting to get pretty long...

"Look, I don't want Mrs. Clinton to be the nominee, but none of this is doing anything but assisting her in making an argument that her critics offer little but personal barbs. There are substantive problems with Clinton's proposals and stances on issues, and they can be raised and discussed calmly and coherently"

Sure. Did you see the debate this week? Edwards took Clinton on quite directly and forcefully over her support for Lieberman-Kyl. That's substance.

But at the same time, Clinton basically refused to answer any questions at the debate. And that's a large part of Rich's critique. The Cackle is a strategy specifically designed to avoid answering questions. Folks should be noting this.

And finally, a political party that refuses to acknowledge stagecraft as a crucial element in choosing candidates - especially Presidential candidates - is utterly insane. I find many of the ideological and partisan political problems present in the Clinton candidacy to be equally present in the Obama candidacy, but I'd far prefer Obama to be the nominee rather than Clinton due to his superior stagecraft.

(Of course, Edwards combines good stagecraft and correct ideology and partisan politics, which is why he is preferable to either Obama or Clinton. But that's a point for another thread.)

"Why not make a serious examination of healthcare central to how we decide on a nominee?"

Because Mark Penn smartly pre-empted that possibility by xeroxing the Edwards plan for Hillary.

Now the only ways to differentiate on healthcare are by highlighting Hillary's failed past, which Obama is trying, and by highlighting that Hillary's financial corruption and corporate focus will lead to a failed future, which Edwards is trying.

The standard Dem strategy is to identify the exact middle voter in the undecided electorate and to pitch to that person. It's a way to leave your base cold and to appear to have no convictions about anything.

This week Clinton was asked who she'd support if the Cubs and the Yanks were in the World Series. She said she'd have to alternate. Puh-lease. Can't she even tell the truth about something as trivial as this?

Posted by: Bloix | Sep 30, 2007 10:15:38 AM

Uhm I don't think either FDR or JFK avoided substantive issues. That's my point. Stage craft was used to inhance decision making, not to avoid it. ANd it doesn't matter if you are making it clear about modern or ancient. Remember the questions that she is avoiding answering.

Posted by: akaison | Sep 30, 2007 10:27:38 AM

I think anyone eager to jump on the Dowd, Rich express should take a look at the Daily Howler series linked in Anush's post. It becomes pretty clear Rich is little more than a well placed concern troll. If we're going to make arguments about Hillary's electability, which is a real issue, we should be basing them on the reactions on real voters, bot the NYT cocktail set. Weboy is correct, live by the cocktail set, die by the cocktail set; they'll turn on your Democratic candidate next.

'Cackle' refers to witches and is a clear gender insult, which bigotry immediately diminishes the rest of his piece to irrelevance.

As you indicate, there can be honest criticisms of Hillary's weaknesses without resort to such bigotry. However, while stagecraft can't be ignored, neither should the motives of likely voters granting her the lead in the polls.

I don't think any columnist or pollster has adequately pursued that question and Rich's suggestion that Hillary's displaying the policy wonkery and stiffness that was part of Gore's stagecraft 7 years ago suggests that Rich really isn't seeing Hillary at all, but is trying to bend her to fit his pigeonhole.

I can only wonder if the NY Times pays him to drink and watch sports at the local pub while he phones in this stuff after researching the wall graffitti from the men's room.

And the damage done by that effort is to prevent folks learning the lesson that lousy candidates run lousy races.

I don't think we need to accept complete absolution for either Gore or the media during the 2000 race. In fact, to do so ignores what really happened. Sure, Gore ran a lousy campaign. But there are still Democrats who think that Gore said he invented the internet and based his whole campaign on wearing earth tones.

Rich's column is a problem because it not only resurrects and reinforces lies and smears about Al Gore - about which he of course conveniently forgets to claim his own share of credit - but uses those same lies and smears to tarnish Hillary. It's the standard GOP nonsense, that Democrats have no substance, no core values to guide them, and only say or do things because some poll told them ahead of time that it would be popular.

It's tempting, as Petey shows over and over in this thread, for Edwards or Obama supporters to not only let this column slide by but to revel in the way it brings down the frontrunner. That's pretty shameful, really, because it displays the same type of loyalty to person over party that brought us the Nader candidacy - which bears as much blame as Gore's wooden campaigning, the nonsense in Florida and the Supreme Court for bringing us the Bush presidency.

Let's say that the media establishment is able to fatally weaken Hillary before the primaries, and Edwards wins the nomination. Is there anyone so naive as to think that he won't immediately become the target? That he won't immediately bear the full brunt of every standard anti-Democrat narrative - wishy-washy, elitist, effiminate, etc. - that the media establishment can throw at him? Hell, he gets most of that now; as the nominee it would only get worse.

If we're willing to accept things like Rich's column as long as they target a Democrat we don't like, then nothing will ever change.

I don't care about Hillary Clinton's "inauthenticity". All I know is that I don't like her as a person, and yes, the laugh is part of that.

Let's not forget that Bill was a world-class BS'er and used his "charm" to get away with implementing Republican-style economic policies. Oh, and how about Bill doing diddly squat when Rwanda was in turmoil? But hey, he issued an apology ten years later and also provided major funding for the Rwandan genocide memorial in Kigali, so I guess he's off the hook. That's the kind of bogus empathy I can do without.

I'll vote for Hillary in the general, if it comes to that, but I've been cool to her ever since she ran as a carpetbagger in New York.

This isn't about the media. It's about whether Clinton is or is not what they describe.

Do you or do you not think its a good for a candidate to be laughing off Iraq? That's the question that I am asking and answring without regard to the press. To do otherwise is to laugh while Rome burns.

Posted by: akaison | Sep 30, 2007 11:03:23 AM

The kind of "authenticity" I'm looking for involves politicians whose actual policies resemble their public postures on their policies, and who in their official activities actually seem to care about the things they pretend they care about, and whose public rhetoric is somehow reflective of reality and good arguments.

Posted by: El_Cid | Sep 30, 2007 11:21:52 AM

Don't worry. With the condition the country's in now, if Hillary Clinton becomes president, she's going to have damn little to laugh about.

Posted by: Bat of Moon | Sep 30, 2007 11:34:13 AM

like i said, shades of 68 and 80. this kind and level of hate and loathing from the cabdidate's supporters pretty much ensures that whoever wins the primaries will be bitterly rejected by both loser's base. that is how we got nixon and how we got reagan, or part of the process. look forward to president giuliani, but at least he is not hillary, and hrc/obama/edwards deserve to lose, cause they are stupid and evil. if they had only listened to you, woulda been a landslide with 50 new house seats and twenty senators

meanwhile, those if us not tending to worship and crazed loyalty are becoming disgusted by the whole thing. i may vote libertarian. i am really starting to dislike edwards based on the kind of support he is drawing. still hold a grudge against teddy and the feminists from 1980

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Sep 30, 2007 11:46:58 AM

"i may vote libertarian"

with this comment you show your hand, and become irrelevant to the Democrats.

Posted by: akaison | Sep 30, 2007 11:56:54 AM

bob mcmanus:
What support of Edwards do you mean? Do you ever check out MyDD and the antics of the Hillary supporters there?

Well, I totally agree that The Cackle™ 2007 is the new rollout of The Sigh™ 2000, and that Rich is making way too much of it... and I dread the prospect of a Clinton II presidency, laughed my ass off when they did the reel of her on TDS, and so forth.

Having said that, it's true that politics is theatre, and stagecraft of the kind that [quite naturally] obsesses Rich is important. The problem with Gore's sighing and Clinton's laughing is that they were clearly experiments with new character tics, and the time to try new things is during the rehearsal process, not while onstage. Someone clearly told Gore that since Bush was going to try to roll a bunch of whoppers out without leaving time to fully rebut, the best bet was to try to show how ridiculous they were through nonverbal responses-- probably not too amused, not too angry-- and that led to the sighing. HRC's laughing is, as has been pointed out, a more ambitious dual attempt to project warmth and avoid answering questions directly. The thing is, if a performer needs to change his/her character's mode of expression (or more properly, add layers to it), then that has to be a process in itself: looking for motivations, signal the emotions that lead to the heretofore-unseen mannerisms, and build the whole reaction up as the culmination of events that make it seem an unexceptional change. Gore and Clinton should have started with puzzlement/bemusement, obviously held themselves back a bit, and then allowed the sighing/laughing to burst out after no longer being able to contain themselves. That's how you avoid jarring your audience.

I'm a Californian transplanted to DC, and surprisingly at peace with it. Or at least I was till it started getting colder. Job-wise, I'm the staff writer for The American Prospect. In the past, I've written for the Washington Monthly, the LA Weekly, The LA Times, The New Republic, Slate, The New York Sun, and the Gadflyer. I'm a damn good cook. No, really. Want to know more? E-mail, I'm friendly.